Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[EvilMonkey]

Romney had still created the culture at Bain and picked the replacements who took over for him.

LIke the guy who was in charge when GST was closed, Jonathan Lavine, who is a major bundler for the Obama campaign. While still working at Bain. Maybe he should give back all that tainted money from anyone connected with Bain.

[Jenksismyhero]

How much control of that he has is, of course, debatable. However, the private sector has been growing jobs for over 2 years consecutively, adding over 4 million jobs since the moment where job growth bottomed out. That's more than the private sector job growth seen during both Bush 41 and Bush 43 combined.

 

Sounds impressive until you remember it's 4.4 million over 28 months. In a country that has how many tens of millions out of work?

[Jenksismyhero]

"Romney made hundreds of millions which he's stashed in foreign countries to avoid taxes from outsourcing American jobs" isn't very complicated. For whatever it's worth, Nate Silver is essentially agreeing with you that this shouldn't move polls all that much, but he believes that Romney's response has only made things worse and that he'll be watching the polls for the next several weeks to see if anything shows up.

 

I find a little bit of irony in labeling Obama as an out-of-touch rich guy considering that many on the fever-swamp right still lambaste him for being a community organizer and never having a "real job." The sitting President is definitely not in touch with the 'average Joe' once they're in office, but Obama does have a background of working directly with low-income Americans.

 

Even when he was a community organizer he was out of touch. Dude went to Harvard and made bank at a major law firm in his mid-20's.

[StrangeSox]

Sounds impressive until you remember it's 4.4 million over 28 months. In a country that has how many tens of millions out of work?

 

4.4M over 28 months versus less than 4.4M over 144 months for the Bushes is the thrust of the argument.

[Jenksismyhero]

4.4M over 28 months versus less than 4.4M over 144 months for the Bushes is the thrust of the argument.

 

With the unemployment % at what? And the workforce having increased by ~10 million. It's a marginal increase in the grand scheme of things, despite the cost.

[StrangeSox]

With the unemployment % at what? And the workforce having increased by ~10 million. It's a marginal increase in the grand scheme of things, despite the cost.

 

I think I should clarify that I'm still talking about effective political messaging here, not whether its a strong claim.

 

Actually, all Romney needs to do is spend tons of money advertising he created jobs, even if he didn't. It doesn't matter if these ads are true or not...they can be distorted truths to the point the become lies, and if you spend enough money, and keep telling some variation of the same lies, people will believe them.

 

Since there really are no laws/rules governing political ads...why bother with the truth at all? Just create a bunch of commercials showing Obama is the single person responsible for job losses...even if it's not true...because congress is more responsible for such things than a president could ever be.

 

I don't think that this can work when you're already on the defensive as Romney is now. It makes it look like you're trying to avoid the questions about Bain and the tax returns. Dishonest but repetitive campaigning can be effective (Swift Boating) but not always in every case.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think I should clarify that I'm still talking about effective political messaging here, not whether its a strong claim.

 

 

 

I don't think that this can work when you're already on the defensive as Romney is now. It makes it look like you're trying to avoid the questions about Bain and the tax returns. Dishonest but repetitive campaigning can be effective (Swift Boating) but not always in every case.

 

How is it dishonest to react to someone spreading lies about themselves being a war hero when the men he went to war with completely disagreed? Come on now.

[Y2HH]

Here is the problem with this election:

 

The best we have to offer -- that have a chance to win -- is Obama vs Romney.

 

Obama is a liar and a failure. He's proven this over the past 3+ years by basically doing nothing he said he'd do in his previous campaign. And the things he has done, such as allowing all the bankers that robbed our system blind, have done nothing to curb said behavior.

 

I would like to give him some degree of credit for doing something about healthcare...while I'm not a fan of the overall law, some of it's unarguably good for the people. That said, he also didn't write the bill...at all.

 

Not that he's alone to blame in this. Congress (both houses), can share in everything that's come to pass equally.

 

Romney...more of the same bulls***.

 

We have 2 choices...again.

 

Two bad choices.

 

Dumb and dumber.

 

Evil or evil.

 

Voting for the lesser of two dumbasses is still voting for dumb.

 

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

 

I select none of the above.

 

Obama sucks.

 

Romney sucks.

 

I hope they both lose.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Y2HH

[BigSqwert]

Here is the problem with this election:

 

The best we have to offer -- that have a chance to win -- is Obama vs Romney.

 

Obama is a liar and a failure. He's proven this over the past 3+ years by basically doing nothing he said he'd do in his previous campaign. And the things he has done, such as allowing all the bankers that robbed our system blind, have done nothing to curb said behavior.

 

I would like to give him some degree of credit for doing something about healthcare...while I'm not a fan of the overall law, some of it's unarguably good for the people. That said, he also didn't write the bill...at all.

 

Not that he's alone to blame in this. Congress (both houses), can share in everything that's come to pass equally.

 

Romney...more of the same bulls***.

 

We have 2 choices...again.

 

Two bad choices.

 

Dumb and dumber.

 

Evil or evil.

 

Voting for the lesser of two dumbasses is still voting for dumb.

 

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

 

I select none of the above.

 

Obama sucks.

 

Romney sucks.

 

I hope they both lose.

 

 

All I have is....

[StrangeSox]

How is it dishonest to react to someone spreading lies about themselves being a war hero when the men he went to war with completely disagreed? Come on now.

 

That's not what happened with the Swift Boating. It was a completely dishonest campaign led by the now-birther Jerome Corsi. It was not "the men he went to war with" and he did not lie. I can't believe anyone outside of freerepublic regulars would still believe that garbage.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_an..._of_allegations

[StrangeSox]

All I have is....

 

Nah, as much as I'm not a fan of Obama, there's substantial difference between him and Romney. Notably in potential SC replacements, which are a President's longest legacy.

[iamshack]

I know I'm not a frequent participant here and I certainly don't waste much of my time on politics, so you guys will probably (correctly) dismiss my opinion, but the entire system is so incredibly out-of-whack that I'm not sure who could succeed in the role of President, at least in terms of success as it relates to things he or she actually is responsible for doing.

 

I don't think Barack is the smartest man who ever lived, but I'm willing to concede that he is an incredibly bright guy; to say that he's done nothing or that he and Romney are "dumb and dumber" seems very symptomatic of the entire political process IMHO.

 

I'm not sure what the playbook is for any President in this political system anymore.

[Y2HH]

Nah, as much as I'm not a fan of Obama, there's substantial difference between him and Romney. Notably in potential SC replacements, which are a President's longest legacy.

 

I'd have to say two of the most fair minded SC appointments in the last generation were made by GW. As a matter of fact, one of them just sided with the ACA.

 

And you don't just to get to replace SC members at will...they have to willingly retire (or die) for you to do so.

[StrangeSox]

I'd have to say two of the most fair minded SC appointments in the last generation were made by GW. As a matter of fact, one of them just sided with the ACA.

 

And you don't just to get to replace SC members at will...they have to willingly retire (or die) for you to do so.

You automatically lose with alito

 

Edit and his attempt at nominating meirs

Edited July 19, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

You automatically lose with alito

 

Edit and his attempt at nominating meirs

 

That doesnt suddenly make the other 2 non existent, the only 2 that seem willing to cross partisan lines to any degree.

 

I know at least one of them was a GW appointment. So he gets credit for that.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

That doesnt suddenly make the other 2 non existent, the only 2 that seem willing to cross partisan lines to any degree.

 

I know at least one of them was a GW appointment. So he gets credit for that.

Gw had Roberts and alito. Roberts is very pro-corporate and alito is terrible.

 

If your other reference is Kennedy, please understand that Kennedy is an extremist, just in his own way. Some of his opinions are pretty out there

[Jenksismyhero]

That's not what happened with the Swift Boating. It was a completely dishonest campaign led by the now-birther Jerome Corsi. It was not "the men he went to war with" and he did not lie. I can't believe anyone outside of freerepublic regulars would still believe that garbage.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_an..._of_allegations

 

The message in the beginning was legit. Kerry ran his entire campaign on his war experience and patriotism. His fellow soldiers - and officers- thought that was bulls***, so they spoke out, especially given Kerry's heavy involvement with Vets Against Vietnam. Did it become more political? Sure. But that's the nature of the beast.

 

I HATE the fact that "swiftboating" has become an adjective for smear campaigns. It was a credibility ad which is no different than the ad Obama just put out against Romney that you think is so amazing. "Hey, this guy says he's awesome, here's why he's not!" Oh, it was started by a guy that dislikes the other side and opposes their views? Shocker.

[StrangeSox]

No, it was a straight-up smear campaign. Only one person who served directly with Kerry was a part of that group. Some of the others explicitly said they joined on as a reaction to his politics afterwards, not his actions in Vietnam.

 

The people behind this group were thoroughly discredited and shown to be dishonest about their own background.

[Rex Kickass]

Ann Romney about releasing Mitt's Tax returns.

 

We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/...l#ixzz215O3EVG6

[CrimsonWeltall]

I HATE the fact that "swiftboating" has become an adjective for smear campaigns. It was a credibility ad which is no different than the ad Obama just put out against Romney that you think is so amazing. "Hey, this guy says he's awesome, here's why he's not!"

 

It was totally a smear campaign. "I served with John Kerry* and those medals he got were BS**"

 

* We were both in Vietnam on boats

** I'm guessing, since I wasn't actually there

 

Swift Boat Vets for Truth should have been called Bitter Republican Vets for Bush.

Edited July 19, 2012 by CrimsonWeltall

[StrangeSox]

Ann Romney about releasing Mitt's Tax returns.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/...l#ixzz215O3EVG6

 

Her phrasing there is pretty poor. "You people," several times. I'm also unsure as to why we shouldn't want to see more than a year of tax returns because he gives money to his church.

[Jenksismyhero]

It was totally a smear campaign. "I served with John Kerry* and those medals he got were BS**"

 

* We were both in Vietnam on boats

** I'm guessing, since I wasn't actually there

 

Swift Boat Vets for Truth should have been called Bitter Republican Vets for Bush.

 

Go read the wiki page SS linked and there are people in the group that were there or in the same area at the time of some of those claims of heroism. Yes, other people piled on and the whole thing got discredited, but not all of them. I'm not suggesting it wasn't shady and that it wasn't a smear campaign. But that's politics baby.

 

In reality Swiftboating should have been "Dan Rathering," when you lose all journalistic integrity and promote a completely fake document to establish your point. Oh, but that was against Bush and he won so it didn't stick.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Go read the wiki page SS linked and there are people in the group that were there or in the same area at the time of some of those claims of heroism. Yes, other people piled on and the whole thing got discredited, but not all of them.

 

Which particular claim? All the guys who served on his boat at the time of those claims backed them up.

 

In reality Swiftboating should have been "Dan Rathering," when you lose all journalistic integrity and promote a completely fake document to establish your point. Oh, but that was against Bush and he won so it didn't stick.

 

The Dan Rather thing was an incident of s***ty journalism, not a political smear campaign. Swiftboating is the far better term.

[StrangeSox]

Rather was fired over it and he and CBS suffered significant harm to their reputation.

[StrangeSox]

Go read the wiki page SS linked and there are people in the group that were there or in the same area at the time of some of those claims of heroism. Yes, other people piled on and the whole thing got discredited, but not all of them.

 

There was one guy who actually served with Kerry but IIRC wasn't actually present for any of the incidents Kerry received medals for. The rest had zero first-hand knowledge of the incidents. No independent source has ever corroborated their claims. It was a complete smear campaign from start to finish.

 

I'm not suggesting it wasn't shady and that it wasn't a smear campaign. But that's politics baby.

 

You were saying in several posts that you didn't think it was fair that it was a synonym for "smear campaign," that they were honest and legitimate ads, etc. They weren't. They would have made Lee Atwater proud.